Is it immoral to believe in anecdotal "answered prayer?"

[gumpzilla]

[ QUOTE ]

I deny its right, at least its a massive exaggeration. Most people would swap something like a wedding ring for an end to world hunger, hence they care more about world hunger than wedding rings.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your counterargument is itself a massive exaggeration. He didn't say that people didn't want to end world hunger, but trading in a wedding ring could probably feed ten children or so for a year. I doubt most people are in a rush to do so.

I'd agree (as I suggested in my earlier post) that a morality based on all the good you're not doing doesn't really seem useful or tenable. But if we agree that that is the case, then I think arguing about the morals of some god is going to be awfully confusing if you're holding that god to a different moral standard than humans. Would it be human immoral to worship something that doesn't live up to god morality? It might still be way better than any human morality. And so on.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I deny its right, at least its a massive exaggeration. Most people would swap something like a wedding ring for an end to world hunger, hence they care more about world hunger than wedding rings.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Your counterargument is itself a massive exaggeration. He didn't say that people didn't want to end world hunger, but trading in a wedding ring could probably feed ten children or so for a year. I doubt most people are in a rush to do so.


[/ QUOTE ]
Sure, most people only care enough to give up a some of what they don't need to survive, but most people will admit that so there's no double standard.

Of course my coumnter-claim is an exaggeration but that's how you deal with exaggerated claims. If we were always willing to give up a non-essential to help 10 starving people then that's the same as giving up everything non-essential - most people wouldn't ever claim they cared enough to do that.

chez

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
I'd agree (as I suggested in my earlier post) that a morality based on all the good you're not doing doesn't really seem useful or tenable. But if we agree that that is the case, then I think arguing about the morals of some god is going to be awfully confusing if you're holding that god to a different moral standard than humans. Would it be human immoral to worship something that doesn't live up to god morality? It might still be way better than any human morality. And so on.


[/ QUOTE ]
The only thing we have are moral judgements and being human the judgments we make are human ones. Its meaningless to talk about gods morality this way - whatever we learn about god we are still left with human judgement about it. If god disagrees then so be it, I can only judge it better or worse using my human facilities.

chez

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I think it is immoral that 99% of all people pretend that starving children means more to them than a lost wedding ring, when from all my observations of people this clearly isn't true.

And note that I'm not judging those who care more about their wedding ring, I'm being judgemental towards so many people having obvious double standards.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd like to see some serious responses to this, because what tame_deuces suggests is undeniably right.

[/ QUOTE ]
I deny its right, at least its a massive exaggeration. Most people would swap something like a wedding ring for an end to world hunger, hence they care more about world hunger than wedding rings. Also many people give far more towards good causes over their lifetime then they spend on wedding rings.

and most people don't pretend they would give up all their wealth to help the starving. Most people who claim to care about the starving etc will admit they only care enough to give up a proportion of what they have. So no double standard. (also a good thing imo as it would be a disaster otherwise)

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Just because they'd give up their wedding ring to "end world hunger" when its put to them in those stark terms doesn't mean that their actions indicate far different priorities. Many people would say a lot of things, and many people would act in a certain way when put under the spotlight, but its their actions when no one is looking that reveal true priorities, IMO.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I think it is immoral that 99% of all people pretend that starving children means more to them than a lost wedding ring, when from all my observations of people this clearly isn't true.

And note that I'm not judging those who care more about their wedding ring, I'm being judgemental towards so many people having obvious double standards.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd like to see some serious responses to this, because what tame_deuces suggests is undeniably right.

[/ QUOTE ]
I deny its right, at least its a massive exaggeration. Most people would swap something like a wedding ring for an end to world hunger, hence they care more about world hunger than wedding rings. Also many people give far more towards good causes over their lifetime then they spend on wedding rings.

and most people don't pretend they would give up all their wealth to help the starving. Most people who claim to care about the starving etc will admit they only care enough to give up a proportion of what they have. So no double standard. (also a good thing imo as it would be a disaster otherwise)

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Just because they'd give up their wedding ring to "end world hunger" when its put to them in those stark terms doesn't mean that their actions indicate far different priorities. Many people would say a lot of things, and many people would act in a certain way when put under the spotlight, but its their actions when no one is looking that reveal true priorities, IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]
True, I think many who could exchange a wedding ring to end world hunger would do so even if no-one ever found out they did it.

chez

[Lestat]

<font color="blue"> I deny its right, at least its a massive exaggeration. Most people would swap something like a wedding ring for an end to world hunger, </font>

Ah, but he said nothing about world hunger. He said Quote: <font color="blue"> 99% of all people pretend that starving children means more to them than a lost wedding ring, </font>

The sheer fact that when someone loses a wedding ring it will occupy their mind at least for that day considerably more than a starving child is proof enough of this statement.


Again, we're not talking about "world hunger" or giving up "all one's wealth". Is your car more important than a starving child? How about the next concert you attend? Why not forego these things and stop a child from starving today?

Answer: Right now, at least right for this very moment these material things are worth more to you than saving a starving child. Otherwise, you'd be making the arrangements.

I am NOT questioning your charity! I don't even know what you give to charitable causes. What I'm saying is that few of us give "til it hurts". We don't need to go broke doing so, but most of us could easily give more AND think more about charitable causes if we wanted to.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
<font color="blue"> I deny its right, at least its a massive exaggeration. Most people would swap something like a wedding ring for an end to world hunger, </font>

Ah, but he said nothing about world hunger. He said Quote: <font color="blue"> 99% of all people pretend that starving children means more to them than a lost wedding ring, </font>

The sheer fact that when someone loses a wedding ring it will occupy their mind at least for that day considerably more than a starving child is proof enough of this statement.


Again, we're not talking about "world hunger" or giving up "all one's wealth". Is your car more important than a starving child? How about the next concert you attend? Why not forego these things and stop a child from starving today?

Answer: Right now, at least right for this very moment these material things are worth more to you than saving a starving child. Otherwise, you'd be making the arrangements.

I am NOT questioning your charity! I don't even know what you give to charitable causes. What I'm saying is that few of us give "til it hurts". We don't need to go broke doing so, but most of us could easily give more AND think more about charitable causes if we wanted to.

[/ QUOTE ]
but few claim to care enough to give till it hurts. The problem here is confusing premises

1) many people claim to care enough to give up some non-essentials often with greater money value than the ring.

2) most of those people don't claim to care enough to donate till it hurts

these are consistant with not caring enough to give up the wedding ring.

the double standard is an illusion (not always but often)

BTW this is not about my charity but I'll brag to giving infinitely more to charity then I've spent on wedding rings.

chez

[gumpzilla]

[ QUOTE ]

I think it is immoral that 99% of all people pretend that starving children means more to them than a lost wedding ring, when from all my observations of people this clearly isn't true.

And note that I'm not judging those who care more about their wedding ring, I'm being judgemental towards so many people having obvious double standards.

[/ QUOTE ]

Put another way: if such a god is itself immoral, and those who believe in it are immoral, then OP is himself immoral, since obviously he is electing to fulfill all sorts of other trivial wishes instead of fixing the plight of those starving African children despite clearly seeing the moral problems with such an approach. Such a stringent definition of morality seems uninteresting to me because nobody satisfies it and thus it loses meaning.

EDIT:

[ QUOTE ]
I'd like to see some serious responses to this, because what tame_deuces suggests is undeniably right.

[/ QUOTE ]

He is undeniably right. The internet (and this community in particular) just has a massive hard-on for attacking religion.

EDIT 2:

[ QUOTE ]
I don't see how this is an appropriate analogy to my friend's belief, since there is a qualitative difference in your relation to your children and your relation to African orphans.

[/ QUOTE ]

Should this distinction carry any moral weight? That's far from clear. If it should, what is the compelling argument that we should be treated as God's children, as opposed to just viewing that as a metaphor?

[Brad1970]

[ QUOTE ]
The internet (and this community in particular) just has a massive hard-on for attacking religion.

[/ QUOTE ]

Never woulda guessed that!!!

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The internet (and this community in particular) just has a massive hard-on for attacking religion.

[/ QUOTE ]

Never woulda guessed that!!!

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure exactly what this is supposed to be a crack at, i.e. what demographic or stereotype you are targeting. Is it that those who are able to turn on a computer are more likely to be critical of religion?